It's arguably, imo definitely, as bad for your health as tobacco and alcohol, especially when consumed in large quantities, including diet sodas which may actually be worse than regular sodas.
The increase in soda consumption correlates directly with the increase in obesity and heart disease. Soda isn't the sole cause of America's health problems, but it is a primary one if not the leading one.

So why are soda adds targeting children not demonized the way tobacco and alcohol adds are?

Why isn't there a push to plaster images of massively obese individuals on soda products like the push to put images of cancer victims on tobacco products (mainly cigarettes)?

Why are children allowed access to this dangerous and addictive product?

Why is there not a "sin" tax on soda and perhaps other sweets as well to deter the purchase of such goods and generate government revenue?

It's politically unfeasible to sin-tax foods. Most citizens don't consider food to be a drug and vice taxes for consumables are usually drugs only.

Yes. New taxes always go over so well with the general population.

But not fruit sodas.

Individuals already have the power to simply *not* consume soda...

ShumaGorath wrote:It's politically unfeasible to sin-tax foods. Most citizens don't consider food to be a drug and vice taxes for consumables are usually drugs only.

Wasn't the same argument made against tobacco? I think soda isn't too far away from being demonized to the point tobacco is. Alcohol is taxed and it a consumable, in fact it was a staple of the human diet for centuries.

LordofHats wrote:Yes. New taxes always go over so well with the general population.

And?

Melissia wrote:But not fruit sodas.

Huh?

Vaerros wrote:Individuals already have the power to simply *not* consume soda...

Strong first post. Same case with tobacco and alcohol and yet they are taxed. Taxes on tobacco products are obscenely high.

Wasn't the same argument made against tobacco? I think soda isn't too far away from being demonized to the point tobacco is. Alcohol is taxed and it a consumable, in fact it was a staple of the human diet for centuries.

Yeah, but in the end public perception of tobacco as a drug defeated public perception of tobacco as an untaxed right. The train from Dr. Pepper to diabetes is hard to see for most. Smoked up black lungs on the other hand was easy.

Research in America found that a 35% tax on drinks sweetened with sugar sold in a canteen, which added about 28p to the price, led to a 26% drop in sales. Studies have estimated that a 20% levy on such drinks in the US would cut obesity by 3.5% and that adding 17.5% to the cost of unhealthy food products in the UK could lead to 2,700 fewer deaths from heart disease

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/16/fat-tax-unhealthy-food-effect?newsfeed=true

dæl wrote:

Research in America found that a 35% tax on drinks sweetened with sugar sold in a canteen, which added about 28p to the price, led to a 26% drop in sales. Studies have estimated that a 20% levy on such drinks in the US would cut obesity by 3.5% and that adding 17.5% to the cost of unhealthy food products in the UK could lead to 2,700 fewer deaths from heart disease

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/16/fat-tax-unhealthy-food-effect?newsfeed=true

That looks worthwhile to me.

Amaya wrote:

Melissia wrote:But not fruit sodas.

Huh?

It was a joke.

Political will aside, I really wouldn't be opposed to a tax on luxury foods in general. Basically anything without real nutritional value, Soda, Candy, Pastries, Snack Chips, Ice Cream etc.. Also, anything that's expensive enough that nobody buying it is living off of it, say anything that costs in excess of $10/lb (in todays money, adjusted forward for inflation).

I mean I already pay a Meals Tax whenever I eat somewhere, I wouldn't be pissed if I also had to pay a tax on my junk food and lobster. I'd probably want it to be less than the state meal tax, maybe something around 5%. It really couldn't hurt anyone none of those are items people need. It could rake in a few bucks, and I really doubt it'd affect purchasing habits on those items too much.

That'd piss McDonald's off, their fries would be taxed extra oh noes!

Amaya wrote:

Vaerros wrote:Individuals already have the power to simply *not* consume soda...

Strong first post. Same case with tobacco and alcohol and yet they are taxed. Taxes on tobacco products are obscenely high.

Tobacco causes damage over a period of time to those around you. Alcohol, well add it to an idiot and a vehicle and you can start to guess why it may be as well.
The main thing it likely comes down to is that it is PC to hate those people but not the fat people yet.

It's the consumer's choice to purchase such an item in the first place.

If they're interested in preserving their health, they'll not take things overboard with the soft drinks. If they don't care, then yes, their health could suffer, and it would be their own fault.

French Fries went up in price in my area. Soda is already 3$ for a 2 liter. Though I do live in chicago

Asherian Command wrote:French Fries went up in price in my area. Soda is already 3$ for a 2 liter. Though I do live in chicago

Last time I checked, I could still get a 3 Liter bottle of Jolly Treat brand soda for about $1.50.

Chongara wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:French Fries went up in price in my area. Soda is already 3$ for a 2 liter. Though I do live in chicago

Last time I checked, I could still get a 3 Liter bottle of Jolly Treat brand soda for about $1.50.

do you live in inner city chicago? If yes, then you know it is actually cheaper to buy food from Fast food than the walmart.

Asherian Command wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:French Fries went up in price in my area. Soda is already 3$ for a 2 liter. Though I do live in chicago

Last time I checked, I could still get a 3 Liter bottle of Jolly Treat brand soda for about $1.50.

do you live in inner city chicago? If yes, then you know it is actually cheaper to buy food from Fast food than the walmart.

No. I apologize if I came off like I was trying to dispute what you said. I was just quoting the soda prices in my area.

I thought it was already going through political hoops to get soda taxed heavier. Hope it eventually goes through-I like soda, but I know it's bad and I'd support a heavier tax on it. I don't drink a lot, but I'd drink less if it had a heavier tax. (Leave ginger ale alone, as it's good for you when you're sick)

Vaerros wrote:It's the consumer's choice to purchase such an item in the first place.

If they're interested in preserving their health, they'll not take things overboard with the soft drinks. If they don't care, then yes, their health could suffer, and it would be their own fault.

This is also true of tobacco and alcohol, yet both of those are taxed?

Amaya wrote:

Vaerros wrote:It's the consumer's choice to purchase such an item in the first place.

If they're interested in preserving their health, they'll not take things overboard with the soft drinks. If they don't care, then yes, their health could suffer, and it would be their own fault.

This is also true of tobacco and alcohol, yet both of those are taxed?

I don't necessarily agree that those items should be taxed so heavily.

dæl wrote:

Research in America found that a 35% tax on drinks sweetened with sugar sold in a canteen, which added about 28p to the price, led to a 26% drop in sales. Studies have estimated that a 20% levy on such drinks in the US would cut obesity by 3.5% and that adding 17.5% to the cost of unhealthy food products in the UK could lead to 2,700 fewer deaths from heart disease

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/16/fat-tax-unhealthy-food-effect?newsfeed=true

There are too many economic issues for a punitive soda and french fry tax to be realistic. Hypothetically, a 35% tax on soda and fast food leads to a 26% drop in sales. That means a 26% drop in product revenue for McDonalds, BK, Wendy's, Coca Cola, and Pepsi. In order to compensate, McDonald's franchise holders will be forced to fire 26% of their employees to cut operating expenses. If each McDonald's employs 60 people, 15 people lose their jobs. 15 people multiplied by the 12,800 franchises in America equals 192,000 lost jobs. Yep, try selling that to the American people.

Taxing is not the way to dissuade unhealthy eating habits. Education and awareness are the keys. Increase support for nutrition education in schools at all levels (elementary, middle school, high school) Promote healthy food being served at school during breakfast and lunch time. Promote recess time for young school children so that they may get out and exercise for an hour every day.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? There would be 2,700 fewer deaths from heart disease and obesity in the UK if 2,700 people took personal responsibility for their health and their actions. Put down the fries and the coke, pick up an apple and a bottle of water.

Melissia wrote:That'd piss McDonald's off, their fries would be taxed extra oh noes!

I remember when McDonald's switched from orange soda to Hi-C. If I remember right it was because Hi-C was perceived as healthier for children than the orange soda, and it was primarily kids that drank the latter.

I will never forgive them for ruining my childhood.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:It's arguably, imo definitely, as bad for your health as tobacco and alcohol, especially when consumed in large quantities, including diet sodas which may actually be worse than regular sodas.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you'll live longer drinking a case of Coke everyday than you will drinking a case of beer every day. Your liver would certainly function better at any rate.

Your liver will be healthier, but not much else will be. Have fun with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Amaya wrote:Your liver will be healthier, but not much else will be. Have fun with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Get those any alcohol consumption on that level.

Or any calorie consumption for that matter, not considering exercise.

Soda companies would not like this at all. They would do everything in their power to stop this. Taxing sodas would cut out such a large part of their market.

Switch to diet?

Meh, I'd still drink it no matter the cost. I'm drinking one as I speak with 2 cans on my shelf.

I say skip taxing specific drinks and food and just have a fat tax. The more overweight you are the more you're taxed. People lose weight and America gets to profit off of all the obesity. Everyone's happy...except the fatties.

I don't drink soda in general. I drink maybe five cans of pop a year, maybe less. I just stopped drinking it when I started university, and it doesn't even sound good anymore. That said, I don't know if I would support a tax on it. There are definitely a lot of people who drink way too much, but I feel like that's their choice and their problem, and like other people have said, someone drinking soda doesn't affect other people the way second hand smoke or driving while drunk does, (or doing anything that's potentially dangerous while drunk really).


I must say though, whenever a thread like this comes up, I find the ease at which many posters toss about disparaging and insulting remarks about overweight or obese people to be absolutely disgusting.

asimo77 wrote:I say skip taxing specific drinks and food and just have a fat tax. The more overweight you are the more you're taxed. People lose weight and America gets to profit off of all the obesity. Everyone's happy...except the fatties.

I'd love for airports and bus companies to have an example seat next to the ticket desk with a sign saying 'you must be this thin to ride' and anyone who takes up more than one seat pays for more than one seat. Really takes the wee on planes where they charge excess for luggage but don't charge someone excess gut fees when they are about twice the weight of a normal person...

SilverMK2 wrote:

asimo77 wrote:I say skip taxing specific drinks and food and just have a fat tax. The more overweight you are the more you're taxed. People lose weight and America gets to profit off of all the obesity. Everyone's happy...except the fatties.

I'd love for airports and bus companies to have an example seat next to the ticket desk with a sign saying 'you must be this thin to ride' and anyone who takes up more than one seat pays for more than one seat. Really takes the wee on planes where they charge excess for luggage but don't charge someone excess gut fees when they are about twice the weight of a normal person...

Some airlines already do charge obese people for more than one seat.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:Your liver will be healthier, but not much else will be. Have fun with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Get those any alcohol consumption on that level.

Or any calorie consumption for that matter, not considering exercise.

You're making a flawed argument here.

1) Everyone has access to soda in large quantities. Drinking it excessively or constantly throughout the day does not impede your ability to function such as consuming large quantities of alcohol would. There is undoubtedly a higher percentage of people consuming 72 ounces of soda a day then people consuming a similar amount of alcohol.

2) Again, the 'caloric consumption' claim is inherently flawed. If this was true their would have been a higher number of obese people as soon as a middle class developed, but the rise of obesity did not occur on a widespread scale until the spread of mass produced sodas, high fructose corn syrup, and processed sugary goods. Eating sufficient calories to cause obesity with just red meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables is nearly impossible. Even adding whole grains into the max wouldn't do much and certainly wouldn't lead to someone being 100lbs overweight.

Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

Amaya wrote:

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:Your liver will be healthier, but not much else will be. Have fun with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Get those any alcohol consumption on that level.

Or any calorie consumption for that matter, not considering exercise.

You're making a flawed argument here.

1) Everyone has access to soda in large quantities. Drinking it excessively or constantly throughout the day does not impede your ability to function such as consuming large quantities of alcohol would. There is undoubtedly a higher percentage of people consuming 72 ounces of soda a day then people consuming a similar amount of alcohol.

2) Again, the 'caloric consumption' claim is inherently flawed. If this was true their would have been a higher number of obese people as soon as a middle class developed, but the rise of obesity did not occur on a widespread scale until the spread of mass produced sodas, high fructose corn syrup, and processed sugary goods. Eating sufficient calories to cause obesity with just red meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables is nearly impossible. Even adding whole grains into the max wouldn't do much and certainly wouldn't lead to someone being 100lbs overweight.

Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think you're missing dramatic social changes that occurred in the 20th century away from agrarian pedestrian societies towards office work and cars. The modern middle class gets dramatically less exercise then it did in the 19th century. Modern sugar consumption is certainly not innocent of having an exacerbating effect, but we've moved to a society where exercise is a luxury good. That will logically create an obese population. Modern wheat product consumption and the rise of high caloric foods with little nutritional value (as well as dramatically increased sodium intake) are every bit as guilty.

Taxed? Yes, soda should be taxed at the ordinary sales tax rate.

Amaya wrote:Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

Only if you don't consume the same amount of sugar. Because HFCS is basically sugar.

Of course, if you make an effort to avoid HFCS, you're going to consume less sugar. Because manufacturers add HFCS, but manufacturers who avoid HFCS don't use sugar instead.

biccat wrote:Taxed? Yes, soda should be taxed at the ordinary sales tax rate.

Amaya wrote:Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

Only if you don't consume the same amount of sugar. Because HFCS is basically sugar.

Of course, if you make an effort to avoid HFCS, you're going to consume less sugar. Because manufacturers add HFCS, but manufacturers who avoid HFCS don't use sugar instead.

HFCS is usually used in about a 3x quantity to sugar when it's used as a stand in. It's not as flavorful and is dramatically cheaper, so low cost foods will just use a lot of it to get the same effect. It's nutritional value is still similar though, so a product using HFCS has essentially three times the "sugar".

ShumaGorath wrote:HFCS is usually used in about a 3x quantity to sugar when it's used as a stand in. It's not as flavorful and is dramatically cheaper, so low cost foods will just use a lot of it to get the same effect.

Cheaper: yes. Not only yes, but hell yes. Not as flavorful? Not really. Unless you're counting the water content (20-30%?) as part of the "quantity."

Plus, it depends on what type of HFCS you're using. Some are sweeter than others.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:HFCS is usually used in about a 3x quantity to sugar when it's used as a stand in. It's not as flavorful and is dramatically cheaper, so low cost foods will just use a lot of it to get the same effect.

Cheaper: yes. Not only yes, but hell yes. Not as flavorful? Not really. Unless you're counting the water content (20-30%?) as part of the "quantity."

Plus, it depends on what type of HFCS you're using. Some are sweeter than others.

The ones in soda specifically are comparable, so I'll accede this one since we're talking about sodas. HFCS 42 is less sweet and used in greater quantities in other sugary applications though, which is probably what I had been remembering. It's also likely that the lowered cost encourages them to use more since "sweeter is better" in many applications.

The vagueries of quantities in food is kind of an aside to the actual issue, which is the emphasis now given to the dominance of sweeteners in foods. Sugar used to be expensive, HFCS turned it into a cheap good and it's not something humans are designed to consume in the ways that they're consuming it. Every part of modern society seems designed to produce fat people, from the way that we live to the way that we work to what we eat and where we get our food from.

I live in Maryland, where there is no tax on grocery store food, excepting bottled drinks including juice, soda and bottled water. (And pet food...)

I can assure you, it's not doing anything to lessen soda intake.

streamdragon wrote:I can assure you, it's not doing anything to lessen soda intake.

Oh, you want to tax it to lessen soda intake? No thanks.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Amaya wrote:

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:Your liver will be healthier, but not much else will be. Have fun with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Get those any alcohol consumption on that level.

Or any calorie consumption for that matter, not considering exercise.

You're making a flawed argument here.

1) Everyone has access to soda in large quantities. Drinking it excessively or constantly throughout the day does not impede your ability to function such as consuming large quantities of alcohol would. There is undoubtedly a higher percentage of people consuming 72 ounces of soda a day then people consuming a similar amount of alcohol.

2) Again, the 'caloric consumption' claim is inherently flawed. If this was true their would have been a higher number of obese people as soon as a middle class developed, but the rise of obesity did not occur on a widespread scale until the spread of mass produced sodas, high fructose corn syrup, and processed sugary goods. Eating sufficient calories to cause obesity with just red meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables is nearly impossible. Even adding whole grains into the max wouldn't do much and certainly wouldn't lead to someone being 100lbs overweight.

Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think you're missing dramatic social changes that occurred in the 20th century away from agrarian pedestrian societies towards office work and cars. The modern middle class gets dramatically less exercise then it did in the 19th century. Modern sugar consumption is certainly not innocent of having an exacerbating effect, but we've moved to a society where exercise is a luxury good. That will logically create an obese population. Modern wheat product consumption and the rise of high caloric foods with little nutritional value (as well as dramatically increased sodium intake) are every bit as guilty.

Of course lack of exercise is a contributing factor, but it's not as significant as you make it out to be.

Simply consuming whole wheat in moderation is not a problem for most people and might contribute to a small amount of weight gain. White flour is significantly worse and basically on par with soda in terms of nutritional value.

What high caloric foods are you referring to other than products with excessive amounts of sugar and HFCS?

The US should just do it, Soft drinks along with virtually all sweets, Crips, snacks, nuts etc have been taxed in the UK for ages.

The concerns about sales falling are likely not to be as bad as they are predicting.

Of course lack of exercise is a contributing factor, but it's not as significant as you make it out to be.

Yes. Yes it really is.

Simply consuming whole wheat in moderation is not a problem for most people and might contribute to a small amount of weight gain.

Stop using the word moderation, it's meaningless. The consumption of soda "In moderation" is harmless as well.

White flour is significantly worse and basically on par with soda in terms of nutritional value.

It's also derived from wheat and is the most common kind of flour.

What high caloric foods are you referring to other than products with excessive amounts of sugar and HFCS?

I don't feel the need to separate them since it's pointless to do so. Sugars are an important part of the human diet, what is problematic is scale and lifestyle, not targeted specific chemicals.

I think soda does, At my local 7/11 its cost two bucks, if they bumped that up to 3 i would only buy one a week.
Im trying to ween myself off soda now. I no longer drink free soda at work(Which BTW, is a bad idea) i only drink power ade or water at work.
In the morning i have an arizona tea(which may be worse, not sure)
i try to only have one soda a day. IT gets hard when they are so cheap and readily avaiable.

Melissia wrote:

Natural and Artificial, best of both worlds. Going to buy me a can off ebay!

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I can assure you, it's not doing anything to lessen soda intake.

Oh, you want to tax it to lessen soda intake? No thanks.

I have no idea if that was the OPs intention or not. I apologize for being unclear, but I was adding that as a correlary to the "omg soda is so bad for you" secondary topic that has sprung up.

And how exactly would you define moderate soda consumption?

You do not have to exercise a single day of your life in order to maintain a healthy body weight. In this instance, I am defining exercise as any physical activity performed during your free time for the purpose of improving your level of fitness not physical activity that you may perform on your job.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I think soda does, At my local 7/11 its cost two bucks, if they bumped that up to 3 i would only buy one a week.
Im trying to ween myself off soda now. I no longer drink free soda at work(Which BTW, is a bad idea) i only drink power ade or water at work.
In the morning i have an arizona tea(which may be worse, not sure)
i try to only have one soda a day. IT gets hard when they are so cheap and readily avaiable.

Powerade and similar products are bad for you as well unless you're an athlete in a cardio heavy sport.

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I can assure you, it's not doing anything to lessen soda intake.

Oh, you want to tax it to lessen soda intake? No thanks.

I have no idea if that was the OPs intention or not. I apologize for being unclear, but I was adding that as a correlary to the "omg soda is so bad for you" secondary topic that has sprung up.

Generally when you make something more expensive (e.g. by taxing it) then consumption of that product is reduced. Even if it's only marginal.

Pfft, Just water during work then i suppose.

You do not have to exercise a single day of your life in order to maintain a healthy body weight. In this instance, I am defining exercise as any physical activity performed during your free time for the purpose of improving your level of fitness not physical activity that you may perform on your job.

Which you're wrong about. An office worker who drives to work and sits at a computer all day has a low floor for caloric intake. The body naturally takes the opportunity to process and store fats by maintaining "normalcy" in consumption because in nature stored fats are a defense mechanism against scarcity. Thus the modern american lifestyle which is very low energy thanks to ease of transport and sedentary working conditions develops fat people by the bodies own designs.

Well it's obvious that there is no reason even attempting to discuss this with you Shuma since you're ignorant on the subject.

Amaya wrote:Well it's obvious that there is no reason even attempting to discuss this with you Shuma since you're ignorant on the subject.

You've managed to repeat the same two lines in every post while dismissing everyone else. You haven't even been backing up your claims with facts or logic. You're not exactly a wonderful debater here.

Saying something is true and that other people are "wrong" doesn't make you right or convincing. Especially when you refuse to interface with the nuances of other peoples opinions.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Amaya wrote:Well it's obvious that there is no reason even attempting to discuss this with you Shuma since you're ignorant on the subject.

You've managed to repeat the same two lines in every post while dismissing everyone else. You haven't even been backing up your claims with facts or logic. You're not exactly a wonderful debater here.

Saying something is true and that other people are "wrong" doesn't make you right or convincing. Especially when you refuse to interface with the nuances of other peoples opinions.

There's no point in arguing with you. You literally have no idea what you're talking about and actually think that you do. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The fact that you even attempt to argue that exercise is necessary to maintain a healthy body weight is hilarious.

Do you not understand how weight loss or maintenance works?

I dropped from 240 to 185 in a little over 3 months doing no more exercise than biking 15-20 miles a week and doing dips and pull ups every other day. That's a really minimal amount of exercise and the only reason I even did that much was to avoid losing excess muscle mass.

Dropping that much that fast requires close to a 2000 calorie a day deficit. Even with that moderate exercise there is no way my peak BMR was over 3000 at any point and yet I still dropped that weight eating 2000~ calories a day and half pound fast food cheeseburgers 4-5 times a week.

I'm just saddened that the majority of folks here seem to think it is okay and good for the Gov't to interfere/control your personal lives to the extent you do and to advocate for MORE gov't control.

I seriously wonder how the concept of personal responsibility has deteriorated to the extent it has.

I bet if you took awaythe idea of 'health care as a right' and made people pay for the consequences of their decisions you could also influence their behavior. I suspect that idea will make some of you go nuts.

There's no point in arguing with you. You literally have no idea what you're talking about and actually think that you do. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The fact that you even attempt to argue that exercise is necessary to maintain a healthy body weight is hilarious.

There is no such thing as a "healthy body weight". BMI is a derivative that must be taken with other factors when determining bodily health. It's a red herring and one that you're unable to stop flying around on. Exercise is important for developing musculature, controlling cholesterol, and developing a functional and healthy cardiovascular system. It's important in thousands of other ways as well, but I'm not going to pay for your college. Being thin isn't being healthy. Being healthy is being healthy.

Do you not understand how weight loss or maintenance works?

I dropped from 240 to 185 in a little over 3 months doing no more exercise than biking 15-20 miles a week and doing dips and pull ups every other day. That's a really minimal amount of exercise and the only reason I even did that much was to avoid losing excess muscle mass.

How the hell is doing daily exercise "minimal"? Doing none and relying on your daily transport routine between your couch and fridge would be "minimal". I'm glad you had a nice success story, but you honestly seem to lack any actual perspective or knowledge here. You're exercising more than the majority of Americans. That means it's not "minimal".

Dropping that much that fast requires close to a 2000 calorie a day deficit. Even with that moderate exercise there is no way my peak BMR was over 3000 at any point and yet I still dropped that weight eating 2000~ calories a day and half pound fast food cheeseburgers 4-5 times a week.

Uhuh. Clearly doing repetitious calorie burning exercises as a luxury outside of you work had nothing to do with it. Sure. Are you reading what you're posting?

If you think biking 20 miles a week at most and doing 50~ or so dips and chin ups 3 times a week is anything more than minimal...hmm...I don't know what to say...I consider that amount to be so minimal its laughable...the fact you actually think that is strenuous is just hilarious to me.

The point being is that I was doing nowhere near enough exercise to lose that much weight that quickly. The fact you haven't figured out how I did it just further validates my belief you have no bloody clue what you're talking about.

CptJake wrote:I'm just saddened that the majority of folks here seem to think it is okay and good for the Gov't to interfere/control your personal lives to the extent you do and to advocate for MORE gov't control.

I seriously wonder how the concept of personal responsibility has deteriorated to the extent it has.

I bet if you took awaythe idea of 'health care as a right' and made people pay for the consequences of their decisions you could also influence their behavior. I suspect that idea will make some of you go nuts.

there is no personal responsibility any more, if you can tell someone else what to do, all the while shouting "please think of the children!!!"

I believe there are too many sugars and too much salt in processed US food. I agree 100%. I also think its personal responsbility and capitalism to adjust. Make your own food, and focus on healthier options in the market. I'm not self righteous. Since mom died I've let myself go and become a physical wreck and its really really hard to get it back. but I blame no else but me (and maybe demon rum for being so awesome).

Wife " Put your hands in the air and step away from the pizza!"
Frazzled, pulls a Rodney, grabs a slice, shoving it halfway into his mouth and runs away chewing
NOM NOM NOM!!!

If you think biking 20 miles a week at most and doing 50~ or so dips and chin ups 3 times a week is anything more than minimal...hmm...I don't know what to say...I consider that amount to be so minimal its laughable...the fact you actually think that is strenuous is just hilarious to me.

Per week I run six miles, do 90 bench presses, 90 military, 90 standing triceps, ~300 weighted situps, and assorted other exercises. I don't consider what you were doing strenuous. At all. But I don't consider it minimal. The word minimal has an actual meaning. What you are doing isn't minimal and it's above curve for America.

The point being is that I was doing nowhere near enough exercise to lose that much weight that quickly.

What was your caloric burn per week? What was your dietary intake? Did you consume less calories? You're describing magic weightloss. Be accurate and informative from now on please. Right now you're being contradictory and displaying ignorance about human biology and physiology.

Amaya wrote:If you think biking 20 miles a week at most and doing 50~ or so dips and chin ups 3 times a week is anything more than minimal...hmm...I don't know what to say...I consider that amount to be so minimal its laughable...the fact you actually think that is strenuous is just hilarious to me.

The point being is that I was doing nowhere near enough exercise to lose that much weight that quickly. The fact you haven't figured out how I did it just further validates my belief you have no bloody clue what you're talking about.

Get older kid and you'll change your tune on whats minimal. When i was young I thought like that, then life wore my joints to gak and I ended up sitting on may ass at work all day. When walking up the stairs is a minor act of will your views on what people can do change.

I'll give you a hint, it's not all about calories.

Really, I can't believe the so called 'nutritional expert' is having such a hard time with this. It's not hard Shuma...well if you know what you're talking about.

Edit: Oh, and why the hell are you doing 90 bench presses a week?

ShumaGorath wrote:

If you think biking 20 miles a week at most and doing 50~ or so dips and chin ups 3 times a week is anything more than minimal...hmm...I don't know what to say...I consider that amount to be so minimal its laughable...the fact you actually think that is strenuous is just hilarious to me.

Per week I run six miles, do 90 bench presses, 90 military, 90 standing triceps, ~300 weighted situps, and assorted other exercises.

On topic, I'm fine with a junk food tax. Britain has one, so why not us? We refuse to tax the rich, so the fat seems like a good enough target.

Amaya wrote:
1) Everyone has access to soda in large quantities. Drinking it excessively or constantly throughout the day does not impede your ability to function such as consuming large quantities of alcohol would. There is undoubtedly a higher percentage of people consuming 72 ounces of soda a day then people consuming a similar amount of alcohol.

Everyone has access to alcohol in large quantities too, its just a matter of certain hurdles. Not unlike soda considering that people under, say, 16 are generally dependent on their parents for everything.

Amaya wrote:
2) Again, the 'caloric consumption' claim is inherently flawed. If this was true their would have been a higher number of obese people as soon as a middle class developed, but the rise of obesity did not occur on a widespread scale until the spread of mass produced sodas, high fructose corn syrup, and processed sugary goods. Eating sufficient calories to cause obesity with just red meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables is nearly impossible. Even adding whole grains into the max wouldn't do much and certainly wouldn't lead to someone being 100lbs overweight.

Obesity isn't all that difficult to cause man. All you need to do is consumer more calories than you expend on a daily basis for a long period of time. Say, over the course of a career and general lifestyle that is highly sedentary.

Soda, and sugary drinks in general, were around, and plentiful, long before obesity was became prevalent. Hell, there was a time when its was safer to drink alcoholic beverages, obviously calorie intense, than water. The major issues are the conversion to a white collar work force, and the elevation of essentially everyone to the standards of the middle class.

Amaya wrote:
Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm arguing because I see many evidence related problems with your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:I'll give you a hint, it's not all about calories.

No, but broadly it is.

I don't drink soda, so this wouldn't really affect me. I'm all for punishing fatties, though! Tax 'em till they shrink!

Chowderhead wrote:On topic, I'm fine with a junk food tax. Britain has one, so why not us? We refuse to tax the rich, so the fat seems like a good enough target.

We're not taxing the rich, so we should tax the poor?

We'll make a Republican out of you yet!

Amaya wrote:I'll give you a hint, it's not all about calories.

Really, I can't believe the so called 'nutritional expert' is having such a hard time with this. It's not hard Shuma...well if you know what you're talking about.

Edit: Oh, and why the hell are you doing 90 bench presses a week?

Because I want to be able to bench the biggest weights.

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I can assure you, it's not doing anything to lessen soda intake.

Oh, you want to tax it to lessen soda intake? No thanks.

I have no idea if that was the OPs intention or not. I apologize for being unclear, but I was adding that as a correlary to the "omg soda is so bad for you" secondary topic that has sprung up.

Generally when you make something more expensive (e.g. by taxing it) then consumption of that product is reduced. Even if it's only marginal.

Perhaps so, although there are certain things that obviously seem to buck this trend. Cigarettes, for example, or alcohol. I know my purchasing of bottled water did not decrease at all when the tax was instituted, although I'm obviously only one person so my anecdotal doesn't necessarily speak to the overall trend. I also still see an absolute ton of soda cans and bottles in the recycle containers at the county dump. (again, anecdotal blah de blah de blah). To be truthful, despite a short lived campaign by various vendors to combat the tax's implementation, I doubt most people in MD even realize they're getting taxed on bottled drinks now.

Obesity isn't all that difficult to cause man. All you need to do is consumer more calories than you expend on a daily basis for a long period of time. Say, over the course of a career and general lifestyle that is highly sedentary.

Soda, and sugary drinks in general, were around, and plentiful, long before obesity was became prevalent. Hell, there was a time when its was safer to drink alcoholic beverages, obviously calorie intense, than water. The major issues are the conversion to a white collar work force, and the elevation of essentially everyone to the standards of the middle class.

Where are you getting this from? Do you honestly believe it is anywhere near as easy to get heavy without eating excessive amounts of sugar/HFCS than it is to do without consuming those 'nutrients'?

Multiple studies have been done linking excess consumption of sugar and HFCS (especially HFCS) to increased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.


It is not and has never been 'broadly' about calories. Proper consumption of macronutrients is more important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Amaya wrote:I'll give you a hint, it's not all about calories.

Really, I can't believe the so called 'nutritional expert' is having such a hard time with this. It's not hard Shuma...well if you know what you're talking about.

Edit: Oh, and why the hell are you doing 90 bench presses a week?

Because I want to be able to bench the biggest weights.

You're doing it so very, very wrong.

You're doing it so very, very wrong.

I am close to benching the biggest weights. A few months ago I was not close to benching the biggest weights. To closer follow your example I will try to consume more cheeseburgers and be more incredulous while doing occasional pullups.

Amaya wrote:
Where are you getting this from? Do you honestly believe it is anywhere near as easy to get heavy without eating excessive amounts of sugar/HFCS than it is to do without consuming those 'nutrients'?

Multiple studies have been done linking excess consumption of sugar and HFCS (especially HFCS) to increased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Ok? We're not talking about diabetes, or cardiovascular health, we're talking about obesity.

Amaya wrote:
It is not and has never been 'broadly' about calories. Proper consumption of macronutrients is more important.

Not relative to obesity. General health, sure, but not obesity.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You're doing it so very, very wrong.

I am close to benching the biggest weights. A few months ago I was not close to benching the biggest weights.

Man, you give up quick. It's okay, most people know nothing about nutrition. I'm sure you'd be a quick study if you actually researched it instead of buying into media lies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Where are you getting this from? Do you honestly believe it is anywhere near as easy to get heavy without eating excessive amounts of sugar/HFCS than it is to do without consuming those 'nutrients'?

Multiple studies have been done linking excess consumption of sugar and HFCS (especially HFCS) to increased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Ok? We're not talking about diabetes, or cardiovascular health, we're talking about obesity.

Amaya wrote:
It is not and has never been 'broadly' about calories. Proper consumption of macronutrients is more important.

Not relative to obesity. General health, sure, but not obesity.

Funny, I could've sworn that one of the main reasons I think soda should be taxed is because it causes health problems other than obesity.

And seriously, try to get fat eating no carbs. Not frigging possible unless you eat like a champ.

Amaya wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

You're doing it so very, very wrong.

I am close to benching the biggest weights. A few months ago I was not close to benching the biggest weights.

Man, you give up quick. It's okay, most people know nothing about nutrition. I'm sure you'd be a quick study if you actually researched it instead of buying into media lies.

I don't understand how that was even a reference to my post. How did I give up quick? You're posts aren't making a lot of sense anymore.

You have said absolutely nothing that implies you have researched nutritional health or human physiology. You've actually said an awful lot that's head scratching or flat out wrong. Again, it's nice that you lost some weight, but you sound like you managed to Mister Magoo your way into it. You don't know human habitual trends or work trends in the last century, you don't know the histories of either sugar intake or HFCS in America, and you apparently haven't ever looked at historical obesity rates or the dates attached to those graphs. Most of what you say doesn't line up with reality and you're refusing to acknowledge very important parts of this issue.

Funny, I could've sworn that one of the main reasons I think soda should be taxed is because it causes health problems other than obesity.

And seriously, try to get fat eating no carbs. Not frigging possible unless you eat like a champ.

Carbs are in more than soda. It must be nice to argue on shifting sands.

I'm all for a large soda tax, we've tried to leave people to their own devices, and the added costs to the health care system are MASSIVE. So I say we tax foods, drinks, drugs that cause such health problems and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

Amaya wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It's politically unfeasible to sin-tax foods. Most citizens don't consider food to be a drug and vice taxes for consumables are usually drugs only.

Wasn't the same argument made against tobacco? I think soda isn't too far away from being demonized to the point tobacco is. Alcohol is taxed and it a consumable, in fact it was a staple of the human diet for centuries.

LordofHats wrote:Yes. New taxes always go over so well with the general population.

And?

Melissia wrote:But not fruit sodas.

Huh?

Vaerros wrote:Individuals already have the power to simply *not* consume soda...

Strong first post. Same case with tobacco and alcohol and yet they are taxed. Taxes on tobacco products are obscenely high.

Buy smokes in Michigan. A pack of Camels is something like $7 bucks a pack.But I dont smoke so it doesnt bother me. I dont drink soda (We call it pop here in Michigan) either, so they can tax the hell out of that as well

I'm not going to spell it out for you. You're the alleged expert, you should know the quickest way to lose weight.

But apparently you don't.

Amaya wrote:I'm not going to spell it out for you. You're the alleged expert, you should know the quickest way to lose weight.

But apparently you don't.

What is the quickest way? All you've said is "Don't drink soda". Please, mister god like Adonis of the perfect body with perfect knowledge of corn syrup and the human chakras. Whats the big secret?

Chowderhead wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Per week I run six miles, do 90 bench presses, 90 military, 90 standing triceps, ~300 weighted situps, and assorted other exercises.

....look-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here........

Shuma was responding to someone insinuating that he couldn't handle a certain level of exercise because Shuma knew most americans don't participate in exercise to that degree. What's wrong with that?

Well since you asked so nicely, I guess I'll oblige.

Dogma was partially correct. Calories are somewhat important, but cutting them alone is not a guarantee of weight loss. It actually leads to yo-yo losses and gains since people are starving themselves and not getting the nutrients they need.

1) Cut down to under 100g of carbs a day. Less if you can handle it and want to speed up the process. I went down to <50g. Don't eat any in the evening. You can reintroduce them after losing the weight, but I would stay under 300g a day tops unless you're extremely active or are trying to increase your mass.

2) Eat multiple, small meals spaced out evenly through the day. Anywhere from 5-8 works depending on your schedule. This speeds up your metabolism without exercising! I know it's fething complicated right.

3) Drink at least a gallon of water a day. Preferably 2.

4) Maintain an overall calorie deficit. 100-250 is fine, it doesn't need to be a huge deficit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scrabb wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Per week I run six miles, do 90 bench presses, 90 military, 90 standing triceps, ~300 weighted situps, and assorted other exercises.

....look-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here........

Shuma was responding to someone insinuating that he couldn't handle a certain level of exercise because Shuma knew most americans don't participate in exercise to that degree. What's wrong with that?

How exactly did I insinuate that? Do people really think that biking 2-3 miles a day is remotely difficult?

I can see why you'd lose weight drinking 2 gallons of water a day. You'd spent so much time pissing you wouldn't have any time eat.

Exalted Pariah wrote:I'm all for a large soda tax, we've tried to leave people to their own devices, and the added costs to the health care system are MASSIVE. So I say we tax foods, drinks, drugs that cause such health problems and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

If you wacked people when they reached 32 you'd save a buttload on health care costs.

Frazzled wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:I'm all for a large soda tax, we've tried to leave people to their own devices, and the added costs to the health care system are MASSIVE. So I say we tax foods, drinks, drugs that cause such health problems and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

If you wacked people when they reached 32 you'd save a buttload on health care costs.

That's clearly not the same thing...

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:I'm all for a large soda tax, we've tried to leave people to their own devices, and the added costs to the health care system are MASSIVE. So I say we tax foods, drinks, drugs that cause such health problems and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

If you wacked people when they reached 32 you'd save a buttload on health care costs.

That's clearly not the same thing...

Yet.

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:I'm all for a large soda tax, we've tried to leave people to their own devices, and the added costs to the health care system are MASSIVE. So I say we tax foods, drinks, drugs that cause such health problems and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

If you wacked people when they reached 32 you'd save a buttload on health care costs.

That's clearly not the same thing...

Sure it is. If health care costs are the only factor, then this would cut down gazillions.

Amaya wrote:
Dogma was partially correct. Calories are somewhat important, but cutting them alone is not a guarantee of weight loss.

Yeah, it is. This isn't a difficult concept, its not the most efficient way of losing weight, or even the most healthy, but it will work every single time.

How exactly did I insinuate that? Do people really think that biking 2-3 miles a day is remotely difficult?

How did you fundamentally misread both his and my post that badly. When did he say difficult? When did he imply it was difficult? When did I? We didn't. That's when.

Amaya wrote:
Funny, I could've sworn that one of the main reasons I think soda should be taxed is because it causes health problems other than obesity.

And yet we've been talking about obesity.

Amaya wrote:
And seriously, try to get fat eating no carbs. Not frigging possible unless you eat like a champ.

You have to do the same thing with carbs.

This thread would hurt my soul if I had one...

KingCracker wrote:I dont drink soda (We call it pop here in Michigan) either, so they can tax the hell out of that as well

They already do. But it's not a soda tax,it's a can tax. Sure, it's refundable and not really that much, but it's a tax.

Exalted Pariah wrote:and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

And that's one reason why I don't like socialized medicine.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Dogma was partially correct. Calories are somewhat important, but cutting them alone is not a guarantee of weight loss.

Yeah, it is. This isn't a difficult concept, its not the most efficient way of losing weight, or even the most healthy, but it will work every single time.

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Funny, I could've sworn that one of the main reasons I think soda should be taxed is because it causes health problems other than obesity.

And yet we've been talking about obesity.

Amaya wrote:
And seriously, try to get fat eating no carbs. Not frigging possible unless you eat like a champ.

You have to do the same thing with carbs.

No, you've been talking about obesity and ignoring other health concerns. Are you honestly saying eating 2000 calories of chicken is the same as 2000 calories of soda or ice cream?

And that's one reason why I don't like socialized medicine.

Interestingly, the only countries on earth with diabetes epidemics (The US, China) don't have socialized healthcare.

Amaya wrote:
You are so wrong it's not even funny.

You sound like every single power lifter I've ever known in that you conflate weight loss with fat loss, they aren't the same.

There's a reason we used to screen out your kind when hiring trainers.

Amaya wrote:
No, you've been talking about obesity and ignoring other health concerns. Are you honestly saying eating 2000 calories of chicken is the same as 2000 calories of soda or ice cream?

No, but I'll say now that both are terrible for you.

What the hell are you talking about now? The only weight you should ever be trying to lose is fat. No matter what you do there will be some muscle and strength loss as well.

Amaya wrote:What the hell are you talking about now? The only weight you should ever be trying to lose is fat. No matter what you do there will be some muscle and strength loss as well.

And again, the power lifter shines through.

So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Amaya wrote:So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Your ability to imagine entire paragraphs that don't exist in other peoples posts is astounding.

Amaya wrote:So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Depends on what your goal is, but sure.

Yeah, sure. I only drink soda once in a while, usually when I'm eating out, and I don't think I would mind too much if I had to pay a lil' bit more, if it benefits my state in some way.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Amaya wrote:So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Your ability to imagine entire paragraphs that don't exist in other peoples posts is astounding.

Shuma, you've already shown that you no business in this discussion. If you can't see how I reached the above query you have some form of reading deficiency.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Depends on what your goal is, but sure.

Why would you ever recommend that?

Shuma, you've already shown that you no business in this discussion.

Because I asked that you stop posting flame bait and instead post something substantive? Which you then did and then immediately went back to flamebait? Sure.

If you can't see how I reached the above query you have some form of reading deficiency.

I can see the steps, but it's a staircase that leads nowhere. You've been equivocating for four pages and dogma didn't say that, regardless of how much you want to go down that path.

Amaya wrote:
Why would you ever recommend that?

If you were, say, 5'9 250 and you wanted to loose both muscle and fat in order to purchase clothes that weren't custom made.

Or, perhaps you don't earn much money, and you want maintain a consistent body image in order to purchase affordable work clothes.

There is an argument that a junk food tax is disproportionate and taxes the poor the heaviest (no pun intended). In the UK our most recent budget has brought in a tax on hot food, nicknamed the pasty tax, and this has caused outrage as commentators have asked our privately educated government when they last ate a pasty. This they proceeded to lie about claimed to have bought one from a shop that didn't exist at the time they claimed to have bought it.

Something must be done about the increasing levels of obesity, if this were brought in then it should be accompanied by tax breaks or even subsidies for healthy alternatives, and much greater education and research. There is currently a lot of research being done into Ghrelin and Leptin, the hormones that regulate the feelings of hunger and being full. Hopefully they can go on to discover ways of dealing with such issues that don't involve elective surgery (in an era of MRSA and other nasties) for those with serious health risks from their size.

I spent some time in Hong Kong a couple of years ago, and their ax system is one of 0% on most things, but luxury items are taxed at 50%. I never saw a single fat person in all my time there. Although this cannot be taken as a tax issue in isolation, as there are countless other factors involved.

So even though 99% of the population does not have excess muscle mass and really can't afford to lose any, you'd argue against cutting calories via carb reduction based solely the experiences of a statistical outlier.

Amaya wrote:So even though 99% of the population does not have excess muscle mass and really can't afford to lose any, you'd argue against cutting calories via carb reduction based solely the experiences of a statistical outlier.

Seriously, stop putting words in other peoples mouths. That's not what he said.

Amaya wrote:So even though 99% of the population does not have excess muscle mass and really can't afford to lose any, you'd argue against cutting calories via carb reduction based solely the experiences of a statistical outlier.

Nope, not what I said.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:What the hell are you talking about now? The only weight you should ever be trying to lose is fat. No matter what you do there will be some muscle and strength loss as well.

And again, the power lifter shines through.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Depends on what your goal is, but sure.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:So even though 99% of the population does not have excess muscle mass and really can't afford to lose any, you'd argue against cutting calories via carb reduction based solely the experiences of a statistical outlier.

Nope, not what I said.

Funny you, criticized cutting carbs to lose weight on what basis exactly?

You also claim that simply cutting calories is an effective weight loss method. It doesn't matter if you cut calories and you still eat garbage. You actually have to clean up your diet and change your lifestyle to maintain the weight loss.


Saying that only weight you should be trying to lose is fat is applicable to 99% of the population.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Yeah, sure. I only drink soda once in a while, usually when I'm eating out, and I don't think I would mind too much if I had to pay a lil' bit more, if it benefits my state in some way.

I've got some good news for you...

I have no idea what's going on in this thread...

There's a junk food tax in the UK and i don't particularly mind...
Admittedly i also wouldn't mind cheaper junk food either so go figure...

Dogma and I are off topic debating the merits of different weight loss strategies. I do agree with him in the example he's given to an extent. Even if a powerlifter cuts from 250-300 down to 200 with minimizing muscle loss, he'll still have significantly larger legs and glutes than the say the average jean is cut for. Wearing a larger waist size because your legs can't fit in a smaller pair of jeans is annoying.

Amaya wrote:
Saying that only weight you should be trying to lose is fat is applicable to 99% of the population.

Not really, lots of people were athletes in high school.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Saying that only weight you should be trying to lose is fat is applicable to 99% of the population.

Not really, lots of people were athletes in high school.

Anecdotal, but at the high school I graduated from (WCHS, San Antonio) out of 3000 students there were maybe 20 actually big enough to cut down the way you describe. There's certainly a place for it, I just don't think it's applicable for the average person.

Playing Devils advocate, I can see what Dogma is saying, my back and shoulders are massive thanks to all the years of yomping about, Its not unreasonable to think someone would want a reduction all over.

Not everyone wants to be beefcake do they?

I am 5'9 and 180lbs on the nose at the moment, im pretty muscular, but my knees get a little sore on distance runs now im older, so I wouldn't mind dropping to 170lbs to get speedier, and if that entailed dropping 6-7lbs or fat and 3lbs of muscle I wouldn't be remotely concerned about it.

As he said, I think its different goals for each person, but not everyone wants to be fething huge. Think about a distance runner or something? Or someone who wants to lose a weight class for boxing, but is already lean? You have to take the weight from somewhere, and if most of your fats already gone anyway, whats left?!

mattyrm wrote:
I am 5'9 and 180lbs on the nose at the moment, im pretty muscular, but my knees get a little sore on distance runs now im older...

You're British me!

feth off I'm not THAT much older than you.

mattyrm wrote:feth off I'm not THAT much older than you.

Like the song I hum about TBone when delicately scratching his neck and chest.
"You're older than dirt. Older than dirt. dirt dirt dirt older than dirt. When sand stone was just sand you were older than dirt. dirt dirt dirt older than dirt..."

You're right as well concerning certain sports Matty. 180 isn't terribly big at 5'9", but there's some fitness models/natural body builders around that size that are pretty bulky, so I can understand that.

I just have a hard time getting my head around actually wanting to lose muscle as well, I mean for someone like Mariusz I could understand that, but he's well 270 with a six pack.